Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I still don't understand the reasoning behind loopholes in a law for conflicting religious beliefs. If the law can afford these allowances, then is the law really needed?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
      Starlight, I gather by your logic that you would be ok with, and defend, a business posting a sign saying "No Whites Allowed"?
      Or perhaps a federally funded group meeting in a publicly paid for space denying whites membership?
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      - Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
        I still don't understand the reasoning behind loopholes in a law for conflicting religious beliefs. If the law can afford these allowances, then is the law really needed?
        Incoherence is the price of accepting unconstitutional laws like the civil rights act.
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          It is right that all people should be able to live in a civilized society
          Forcing people to do work for other people is uncivilized.
          Therefore it is right that all people should be free from being forced to to work for other people.

          I'll be waiting with popcorn for when a Muslim business owner in Indiana refuses to serve a Christian customer. Presumably all hell will break lose, because, let's be very clear: the people supporting this legislation do not actually believe in freedom of religion, they believe in Christian superiority and the importance of Christians being able to enforce their religion on others.
          But the law in question does not specify any particular religion. It affirms free exercise of religion in general, equal terms.
          I'm still waiting for you to explain why, specifically, you think this law is bad. (At most you are making an ad hominem fallacy here, attacking certain "people" supporting this legislation.)


          Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
          I still don't understand the reasoning behind loopholes in a law for conflicting religious beliefs. If the law can afford these allowances, then is the law really needed?
          I generally agree with you: the laws in question are usually bad ones, and everyone should be exempt, not just those with a religious objection.
          However, the Indiana law that this thread is about does not carve out any loophole/allowance/exception to any particular law. It is a general protection of the free exercise of religion, which is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. How, specifically, is this law a bad law?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
            Starlight, I gather by your logic that you would be ok with, and defend, a business posting a sign saying "No Whites Allowed"?
            Typically with non-discrimination laws, once it is decided that a certain type of discrimination like 'on the basis of race' or 'on the basis of sexuality' is causing suffering, then discrimination based on that entire category is banned. Thus Whites become protected as soon as Blacks are, and heterosexuals become protected as soon as gay people are. That works fine, and I think it's perfectly reasonable. It's worked perfectly fine here for more than 20 years now.

            Here, in fact, the law goes a bit further and simply bans a long long list of any personal thing that might be the basis for discrimination. Business owners can still operate their businesses according to their beliefs and values: eg they can strive to be particularly environmentally friendly; or they can have particularly high standards for the humane treatment of animals etc. But when it comes to dealing with the public and their employees, they've got to treat people fairly and aren't allowed to be nasty on the basis of race or gender or any other personal attribute. I think that's good - I think the law should encourage fairness and good treatment of others, and I see no reason to try and maximize people's freedom to be personally nasty to others.

            To deal directly with your example, a sign saying 'no whites allowed' is obviously vastly less harmful than 'no blacks allowed', because it doesn't play into an existing problem of cumulative harm caused by discrimination. Ample empirical evidence in the US shows that blacks are suffering significant harms - earlier this month the Department of Justice's report on Ferguson shows a pattern of systemic racial bias in the policing there. And in the general black American population the effects of minority stress are well documented. By contrast, an individual incident of discrimination against White people, would simply be unwarranted discrimination but would not play into any existing cumulative problem.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Joel View Post
              I found the actual text of the law. It can be read here: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/...ument-f6915f8f

              It says

              "Sec. 6. A state action, or an action taken by an individual based on state action, may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or policy of general applicability, unless the state or political subdivision of the state demonstrates that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is:

              (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
              (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest."


              The rest of the text is definitions of terms and a statement that violation of Sec. 6 can be used as a claim or defense in court.

              You would think that would be uncontroversial, since the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And this has been extended as a limitation on all governments in the U.S, via the 14th Amendment. If anything the Indiana law seems to concede too much. After all, the Constitution doesn't add, "unless it's really in Congress' interest to do so."

              With this loophole, you know that anyone who wants to violate any rights will claim that the government has a compelling interest in doing so.
              That's exactly the same as a 20-year old federal statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was originally introduced by none other than Chuck Schumer. 20 years ago (believe it or not), religious freedom was an issue pretty much everyone could agree on.

              RFRA has never, to my knowledge, been used as a legal justification by a business to refuse to provide services to any person purely on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                I generally agree with you: the laws in question are usually bad ones, and everyone should be exempt, not just those with a religious objection.
                However, the Indiana law that this thread is about does not carve out any loophole/allowance/exception to any particular law. It is a general protection of the free exercise of religion, which is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. How, specifically, is this law a bad law?
                If the law is a general protection of the free exercise of religion, then it is redundant, and therefore a waste of time and money, serving only to muddle the legal landscape. It is also strangely targeted. Why the specification of religion? What about not substantially burdening any right? The law also reinforces the idea of religious exemptions, which make no sense.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Psst, it appears to be a version of the Lemon test. Hmmm, wording is familiar; could be a different decision. I'll get back to you on that. At any rate, it codifies existing Fed precedent.
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                    Psst, it appears to be a version of the Lemon test. Hmmm, wording is familiar; could be a different decision. I'll get back to you on that. At any rate, it codifies existing Fed precedent.
                    Lemon is establishment, not free exercise. You're thinking of the Sherbert test.

                    RFRA was initially introduced in Congress to codify Sherbert after the SCOTUS decision in Employment Division v. Smith.
                    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                      Lemon is establishment, not free exercise. You're thinking of the Sherbert test.

                      RFRA was initially introduced in Congress to codify Sherbert after the SCOTUS decision in Employment Division v. Smith.
                      That's right. Sherbert has some similarities with Lemon and I did get them confused. Thanks.
                      L
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Wow, some people are just really really desperate to be nasty to gay people, aren't they?
                        Yeah that must be it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Joel View Post
                          The proper response to the news story is: Wow, some people really hate the 1st Amendment!

                          I see nothing in the text of the law that references gay people or being nasty to them. It seems to only reaffirm (weakly) the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. What error do you see in it?
                          Starbright lives in New Zealand. What he knows about American society and the constitution might fill a thimble almost halfway.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            That's right. Sherbert has some similarities with Lemon and I did get them confused. Thanks.
                            L
                            I like orange sherbet
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              I like orange sherbet
                              Down in Florida near where I went for treatments there was this fruit place that had really good orange sherbet. They also usually have A&W Root Beer in glass bottles really cold.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                                If a business owner refused service to me because I'm a Christian, I would shrug and go elsewhere.
                                That's not a comparable situation. American Christians are the powerful majority who can easily find an alternative and are given all sorts of affirmations of their superiority throughout their lives. Of course you would shrug.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                128 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                330 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                361 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X